Today NOAA officially announced www.climate.gov It didn’t take skeptics long to find a sin of omission. WUWT reader Dave N. pointed this one out to me.
Let’s start with the lecture to skeptics in the Dec 31st 2009 story “What the future may hold” which is an article about sea ice extent. The climate.gov website has been in “beta” for a couple of months. It was announced first on WUWT on December 2nd, 2009. There has been plenty of time to correct this story. The story states:
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The people who have been focusing on the ‘cooling’ have not been telling the whole truth,”
It appears right below this graphic:
This NOAA.gov story for their new “ClimateWatch magazine”, is written by Michon Scott. It leaves out some important data that is obvious to everyone, skeptical or not.
The sea ice data, cited from NSIDC, stops in 2007. 2008 and 2009 sea ice data and imagery, available to even the simplest of curiosity seekers at the publicly available NSIDC or even Cryosphere Today websites, is not included in the graphic. Mr. Scott chooses the historical satellite record minimum of 2007 as the endpoint for comparison. This leaves a reader who is “not in the know”, with the false impression that sea ice has not recovered in any way.
Sometimes I wonder if these government types have any idea of just how blazingly stupid they look when they lecture skeptics, but purposely dig their own obvious data omission hole in the same article.
Here’s the 2008 and 2009 imagery. It took me all of about a minute of work to find it.
Above: Average, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Arctic sea ice extent. From NSIDC
Or how about Cryosphere Today, showing the 2008 and 2009 minimum days side by side?
You don’t need to work for NOAA to find this sea ice extent imagery.
There’s no excuse for NOAA not showing the 2008 and 2009 sea ice data or imagery in this story. None, zilch, zero, zip, nada.
Suffice it to say, this piece on www.climate.gov is propaganda with a lie of omission. It is not science because it omits a portion of the data that disagrees with the article’s premise.
So to Tom Karl, the new director of this machine, I use the again words written by your employee, Michon Scott with a single substitution.
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The people who have been focusing on the ‘warming’ have not been telling the whole truth,”
Rather than lecture us about “truth” while at the same time omitting data not in line with the premise of the article, I suggest that if NOAA is to have any credibility with this website, you should fix this omission and present the true and complete history of the sea ice record. The sooner the better.
For those that agree and wish to complain, a review of NOAA’s “Information Quality” policy might prove useful:
See it here: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/Policy_Programs/info_quality.html
For those who want to make the issue known to the newly appointed man in charge:
thomas.r.karl [at] noaa.gov
He might need a reminder that he works for us, not the other way around.
Rotten Agency blabbering on rotten ice?
It is full steam ahead for the Communists that think they are in control of the USA. But, alas, it is they who “don’t get it,” not us! LOL.
I really wish I was as ignorant and stupid as some of these ethical non biased scientists think I am.
I could just continue on being oblivious to the massaging of the message.
If only!!
Tom Karl is playing “Funny Doctor” with our money….
Enough is ENOUGH….
This is disappointing to me, as I have fond memories of working as a computer programmer for NOAA during the 1970s in Boulder, Colorado … and taking a larger view, all of science has suffered for becoming embroiled in politics. I am a firm believer in the separation of science and state per Eisenhower’s words of wisdom on this topic.
Anthony, how does one post a PRIMAL SCREAM on this site. Given this and the previous entry about NOAA, I feel the need to vent. My wife won’t like it if I scream inside the house and it’s too damn cold outside.
I don’t need to go to climage.gov to know the full extent of the damage done to the historical record. Perhapes a better website name would be delete.gov
The esteemed faux Dr. Thomas Karl has had his own problems with telling the whole truth. If he were in private industry he likely would have been fired.
Since when has a court of law been about truth (As that happens only in movies)?
Karl’s just delivering the message.
Following orders.
Good boy.
I view Cryosphere all the time to verify data. It has a wonderful search feature to compare any given day. (warning, they cannot tell you if satellite is on the blink for any particular image. non-data appears as no ice)
This is another hoax. Like they are the sole source of information. These people need to be fired.
If you put any stock in subliminal suggestions, take a look at the ClimateWatch Magazine banner at the top of the page.
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2009/articles/short-term-cooling-on-a-warming-planet/4
Does that resemble a hockey stick to you?
Unfortunately, scientists have been trained to manipulate and distort observations to fit the fancy of those who control their research funds.
Scientists who refuse to do so, are soon unemployed. That is how the unholy alliance of politicians, publishers and news media have transformed science into a tool of propaganda.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Space & Nuclear Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Anthony,
If it wasn’t for the millions of other’s following this site, I wouldn’t waste the electrons to send my comments to the NOAA site or it’s Director. Like NASA, CRU, CRU and the IPCC, honesty is a lesson they teach, not from experience.
But it would make for a grand inaugural to have their server shut down by millions of e-mails pointing out their errors and hypocrisy. Let’s do it.
Pure Lubchencoism. The government fights back against the “bloggers”, spits in the eye of the citizenry.
Well, it won’t work. They can try. They can spend our money to tell us how wroooong we are, but the tide of public opinion has turned. In the end, no matter what kind of government, public opinion rules. WUWT and other climate realist sites ARE the public opinion. What we are witnessing is the death spiral of AGW. Lubchenco, Karl, Jackson, Obama et al. are drowning in the incoming tide.
Keep up the spirit and the efforts. The climate.gov site is jammed with errors, speculation, and unscientific biases. They will be shamed and cast aside.
Anthony, take a look at your automatically generated links. At least on my computer, it’s some pretty weird (as in sick) stuff.
REPLY: WordPress.com automatically chooses those, I’ve turned off the feature for now. Thanks -A
So how does one tell the difference between ice that has been compacted and ice that has melted?
Both could show the same image, but one is of more concern than the other.
Michon, please leave a comment here stating Karl told you to leave out ’08 & ’09.
Don’t be the fall guy.
LEAK!
I am amazed at how much of AGW is propaganda, and I am also amazed at how little the recent revelations seem to affect politicians.
The main props for AGW have collapsed, and the remaining supports are under attack – only obfuscation preserves them [for the moment].
Politicians still seem anxious to impose massively crippling policies on their countries without a single doubt in their mind! Not only that, but the policies are ineffectual, only resulting in the transfer of industries to the developing world, and saving no CO2 at all!
I would really like to know exactly why they are doing this.
I just stopped in at http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/
It was a page fulll of “Oh my god! We’re all going to die.” I would ask the people at NOAA: Isn’t something positive going to happen somewhere. Is every change a disaster? It seems to them it is.
Can’t someone convince them that it is stagnation, lack of change, that is the disaster. Change leads to disequalibrium which leads to motion which is life. Lack of motion is death.
Arrgh, one wants to rant on and on.
They should have included this graphic.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/figures/seaice2009fig2.jpg
No excuse.
[snip – funny but a bit OTT sorry]
The age of the ice was not an issue when the trend supported the narrative.
Now, age-of-ice is vital, even though, as I recall, there is notreally good metrics for age-of-ice at all.
Oh great! another politically inspired, obfuscating, tax guzzling governmental agency.
Who needs this crap?
Another US taxpayer funded propaganda site…
Impossible! It came from a Gov’t website!
They also left out 2006, 2004, and 2003.
What is significant about these years? These are years just like 2008 and 2009 where sea ice temporarily recovered for a year or two, and then was followed by a larger drop afterwards.
All in all there are about 30 years of satellite data available. They showed 3, omitting 27, and you complained about the omission of two of these 27 years, but not the other 25 years that were ommitted.
REPLY: Technically that’s true, but I specifically complain about the one sided presentation, giving the impression that sea ice has never recovered from the 2007 all time minimum. 2007 has been used a poster boy for many stories like this.. -A
As an attorney and a Ph.D. I am terribly offended that they would lump all skeptics in as liars, and then lie. This is no better than Palin screaming about Obama’s use of a teleprompter while using notes and scribbling answers on her hand, NASA should be ashamed.
Many warmers are using simplistic lies and analysis to create a meme, there are many coolers doing the same, this is far too important an issue for either side to lie or obfuscate…
References:
Andronova, N.G., Schlesinger, M.E., (2000). Causes of global temperature changes during the 19th and 20th centuries. Geophysical Research Letters. 27(14), 2137-2140.
Black, R. (2009, December 2). Climate science, from Bali to Copenhagen. BBC. Accessed December 10, 2009.
Black, R. (2009, December 8). This decade “warmest on record.” BBC. Accessed December 10, 2009.
Borenstein, S. (2009, October 27). Global cooling claim not supported. Associated Press. Accessed December 10, 2009.
Carter, B. (2006, April 9). There IS a problem with global warming . . . it stopped in 1998. Telegraph.co.uk. Accessed December 10, 2009.
Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Division. Time Series: AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation) Index. Accessed December 20, 2009.
Easterling, D.R., Wehner, M.F. (2009). Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophysical Research Letters. 36, L08706, doi:10.1029/2009GL037810.
GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). Accessed December 10, 2009.
Investor’s Business Daily. Article reproduced at RealClearMarkets (November 8, 2008). Accessed December 10, 2009.
Keenlyside, N.S., Latif, M., Jungclaus, J., Kornblueh, L., Roeckner E. (2008). Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. Nature. 453, 84-88, doi:10.1038/nature06921.
Met Office Hadley Centre Observations Datasets. HadCRUT3 dataset. Accessed December 10, 2009.
National Climatic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies. Accessed December 22, 2009.
National Snow and Ice Data Center. State of the Cryosphere. Accessed December 10, 2009.
NOAA Response to Congressional Questions Regarding Climate Change, The Honorable Joe Barton and the Honorable Fred Upton. Updated November 2009. Accessed December 10, 2009.
RealClimate. (2009, October 6). A warming pause? Accessed December 10, 2009.
Schlesinger, M.E., Ramankutty, N. (1994). An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years. Nature. 367, 723-726.
That Sorenstein B. must be a peer reviewed publication… LOL
Polititians AND scientists… you expect honesty and integrity?
Yeah. And rabid pit bulls are sweet little lap dogs.
P.S.: I apoligize to any pit bulls who were insulted by my comparing them to either polititians OR scientists.
This is standard practice in climate science. The big pre-Copenhagen story about “increased Greenland melt” was dated 2003-2007. The entire global warming industry is based on half-truths (or less.)
Sometimes I wonder if these government types have any idea of just how blazingly stupid they look when they lecture skeptics, but purposely dig their own obvious data omission hole in the same article.
Tut tut, I’m quite sure their Arctic ice story was peer reviewed to “gold standard” quality. So everyone just lie back and enjoy the Fantasyland with them, or else Karl might start threatening to commit suicide or something.
Lie of omission 2:
Why does their timeline begin in 1959? Maybe because their sunlight input, which their graph implies is constant, is only constant from 19569 onwards. Slide the date back to 1880 and it sure looks to me like sunlight and temp might correlate….
Oliver K. Manuel (19:42:25) :
“Scientists who refuse to do so, are soon unemployed. That is how the unholy alliance of politicians, publishers and news media have transformed science into a tool of propaganda.”
Isn’t this how it was done in the 1930’s – in Germany?
Has history taught us nothing?
Globe & Mail: Eric Reguly: The fear and farce of climate-change science
One embattled scientist admits suicidal thoughts as another pens sex-laden novel
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-fear-and-farce-of-climate-change-science/article1459355/
Kind of blending the immutable spheres of politics and science aren’t we Henry?
Please, Henry, when people do this they usually show their naivety in one field or the other …
.
.
The IRI was established as a cooperative agreement between NOAA’s Climate Program Office and Columbia University.
It is part of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, and is located at the Lamont Campus.
Esther Conrad writer
Francesco Fiondella writer…
Activism!
Jim-
LOL! You idiocy precedes you, many patent lawyers today have both degrees. My job is litigating patents for one of the best science companies in the world. Patent litigation is one of the hardest areas of law and science as the money at stake requires excellence in both, or will get pwned, kinda like you just did. Grossly overbroad characterizations lead to incredibly stupid comments, congrats on yours.
Lie of omission 3:
Why use only Arctic sea ice extent and not Antarctic sea ice extent as well? Well, maybe because Anatartic sea ice extent is rising over the same period and it does not fit the Climate.gov meme. Scroll down, here:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
Omissions – An Inconvenient Truth
I’ll write the script, but someone else needs to produce and direct the film.
Nobel is waiting.
Not sure this lie of omission is as large as my prior two, but the short term focus of the site ignores long term sea level change and ignores data, some of which has recently been posted here such as the Israeli sea level change paper and this data, also recently posted here showing long term sea level change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
About NOAA’s Climate Program Office
NOAA is a leading provider of weather, water, and climate information and services to the nation and the world. Established in October 2005, NOAA’s Climate Program Office (CPO) provides strategic guidance and oversight for the agency’s climate science and services programs. Designed to build knowledge of climate variability and change—and how they affect our health, our economy, and our future—the CPO’s programs have three main objectives:
Describe and understand the state of the climate system through integrated observations, monitoring, and data management;
Understand and predict climate variability and change from weeks to decades to a century into the future; and
Improve society’s ability to plan and respond to climate variability and change.
The CPO funds high-priority climate research to advance understanding of atmospheric and oceanic processes as well as climate impacts resulting from drought and other stresses. This research is conducted in most regions of the United States and at national and international scales, including in the Arctic. Recognizing that climate science literacy is a prerequisite for putting this new knowledge into action at all levels of society, the CPO also helps to lead NOAA’s climate communication, education, and professional development and training activities.
Kennedy, Caitlyn Science Writer
Taxpayer’s money hard at work for Solomon’s agitprop…
I also notice on Climate.gov that they somehow lost the ability to measure solar irradiance after the year 2000 even though they managed to reconstruct it back to 1880.
two pages….read it and weep!
NYT: ELISABETH ROSENTHAL: U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/science/earth/09climate.html
“For those that agree and wish to complain, a review of NOAA’s “Information Quality” policy might prove useful:
See it here: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/Policy_Programs/info_quality.html
For those who want to make the issue known to the newly appointed man in charge:
thomas.r.karl [at] noaa.gov
He might need a reminder that he works for us, not the other way around.”
Naming names and their e-mail addresses is ballsy.
REPLY: His email address is all over the web, a matter of public record. Google it and you’ll find many places where it resides. The press release today from NOAA also names him as director of this new climate service to be. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100208_climate.html
I figure if he’s put his name and email out there and is a public employee, we can post it here. -A
Taking an average of the last 30 years and calling it a meaningful trend is like saying “because it’s rained 3 out of the last 5 days, I declare a flooding trend for the future”. Unless we know with any certainty what sea ice has done over the last 10000 years, the last 30 is totally meaningless.
read it and weep … again….
Guardian: Ian Katz: The case for climate action must be remade from the ground upwards
With the science under siege and the politics in disarray, it may fall to civil society to keep this still crucial fight alive
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/feb/08/case-for-climate-change-science
They are too invested in this line of thinking to back out. All they can do is double down on every hand until their chips run out.
I here they ran out of rock salt up north and what with another noreaster coming, oh my.
“I figure if he’s put his name and email out there and is a public employee, we can post it here. -A”
A,
That’s cute. You know exactly how many people see you’re site with His e-mail address on it.
REPLY: Not intended to be cute. Like I said, anybody can get his email address in a few seconds of Googling. – A
And A,
With this topic like no other place on the web laid out this well, reading yours should make peoples heads explode as well.
If this was a web site for a business pitching their product like this, the FTC would be all over them, issuing cease and desist orders.
No an omission, just a wish, that climate folks would truly use and explain the correlation in sunlight and solar output and how much of the temp increase is accounted for by solar output. As I noted above, one expects and prior to global warming paranoia one found everywhere, a strong correlation between solar output and earth temp. This would be expected, the other change in the IPCC that seems to get less press is the decrease in the amount of temp change accounted for by solar input. As noted above, this correlation can even be found using the data on the Climate.gov. Solar output is also correlated with sunspots, and sunspots with climate/weather as shown here even over single sunspot cycles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716113358.htm
Now add that to the fact that sunspot cycles correlate with the short term temp shown on their site:
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html
And that the current warming correlates to the current modern maxima in sunspots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
…and you must conclude that the change in the IPCC, lowering solar input as a driver of climate, was … puzzling. This does not mean that anthropogenic global warming is not happening, just that it is likely happening at a lower level than the IPCC claims as at least a portion of the warming is accounted for by the earth’s furnace, namely the sun, and not just the blanket holding in the heat the furnace produces, namely the atmosphere and its constituents.
[posting as multiple identities is prohibited ~ ctm]
Their site has had two different versions of their global average temperature graph, both of which use graphic tricks to make a linear trend look like a recent upswing instead. I deconstructed both versions here:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/dy5a3m.jpg
Michael–
Me too. Why did I sell that huge snowblower when I left Chicago for the relatively tropical mid-Atlantic?
So it is OK for US tax dollars to go to advocacy sites these days? Things have changed since I used to live in the US…
Henry:
This is no better than Palin screaming about Obama’s use of a teleprompter while using notes and scribbling answers on her hand
Now ask yourself, Henry, is a teleprompter a hand?
No propaganda by the U.S. Government is permitted without an appropriation for it by Congress. The Democrat led majority appropriated money for the propaganda….
I just emailed ‘thomas.r.karl [at] noaa.gov’ a note requesting a return to objectivism and included:
8 02 2010
noaaprogrammer (19:26:04) :
This is disappointing to me, as I have fond memories of working as a computer programmer for NOAA during the 1970s in Boulder, Colorado … and taking a larger view, all of science has suffered for becoming embroiled in politics. I am a firm believer in the separation of science and state per Eisenhower’s words of wisdom on this topic.
as I could not improve on it.
Please join in.
Jim-
Looks like you are getting pwned alot tonight! Seems scientists agree with my post above, and not your slam on me. Thanks for playing:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/sir-david-king-half-right-on-the-ipcc-and-global-warming-policies-despite-bad-logic/
LOL!
J. Peden-
Go ask yourself, would any knowledgeable and well versed politician need a three line note to remember an answer to a question, a question that she she knew in ADVANCE? Seen Obama at those town halls where he has knowledge on every issue? Did you see Obama crush the entire House caucus last week with KNOWLEDGE and FACTS and no teleprompter? I want a President smarter than me, and I am pretty damn smart…
There’s no excuse for NOAA not showing the 2008 and 2009 sea ice data or imagery in this story. None, zilch, zero, zip, nada.
=================================================
Sure there is. The government wants to tax carbon. They need some ‘science’ to do it. Science is data. And as we have learned you can make data say anything. You can even use it to prove that carbon needs to be regulated and taxed.
The Founding Fathers didn’t like tax on tea. Tea is small time compared to carbon. Imagine what the Founding Fathers would think of co2 taxes!
Mark my words, (like I said long ago), under Jane Lubchenco, NOAA will engage in extensive public education, propoganda, in the model she brought from Oregon where every major goverment institution has long established this approach. With the media lapping it up for distribution.
Lubchenco has also recently established this ClimateCentral.org web site for the public to better understand climate.
http://www.climatecentral.org/breaking
And the first piece of help?
Western Australia Drought is ‘Proof of Climate Change.’
Published: February 8th, 2010
AUSTRALIAN AP – The author behind a new study linking 30-year drought in Western Australia with heavy snowfall in Antarctica says it is strong evidence man-made greenhouse gases have provoked dramatic climate change. … Read More
This seems to be a decent NSIDC site for watching the extent of polar ice over real time, with results nearly up to today’s date:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I can’t say I’m terribly worried at this point! It will be interesting to see what happens in the springtime.
NikFromNYC – nice demonstration – thank you – should be obligatory viewing for politicians.
Henry (21:21:34) : “I want a President smarter than me, and I am pretty damn smart…”
And modesty is one of your finer qualities…
@Henry (21:21:34)
Do take a breath. Politics are still heavily involved, even with a smarter politician. His cabinet is still laden with these advocates that are key issues to this debate. Their advisements will continue to affect this or any administration until they show everyone the charlatans that they are. Keep up the investigations.
Great animation of all Arctic sea ice data:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice_animation.html
Off topic, great shuttle launch pic:
http://www.launchphotography.com/STS-130.html
Some might want to freeze frame this NASA polar ice image:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/326193main_sup1seaicemax_full.jpg
for reference this coming August.
NASA truncates the ice extent data to 2007 on their Climate Kids Web page, which was recently announced on the NASA Global Climate Change web page.
Details here: http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2010/02/climate-kids-nasas-eyes-on-the-earth.html
This seem to be concerted effort to distort the data and scare kids and adults alike.
There is an online feedback form “Tell Us What You Think” linked as part of the standard footer on many pages:
http://www.climate.gov/
http://www.climate.gov/about.html
etc
Direct link is to the form is:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GGVK2C6
Andrew-
There are many alot smarter than me, I am just very sure Palin is not among them.
Intrepid-
I do not disagree that Obama is limited by some left of center cabinet choices, but he is a centrist, and this whole Obama as a radical thing is belied by facts…
Gene Zeien (19:32:50) :
I’m happy to see another commenter that understands the math of statistics, data smoothing, graphs, etc., checking up on things! 🙂
I see on your web site:
Eugene Zeien, BS Applied Physics 1991 18 years experience in data analysis & IT support at the University of Iowa…..”I decided to take the time to find raw, unadjusted data and undertake some simple analyses.”
http://justdata.wordpress.com/
Disclaimer: the following is not legal advice, but is a general discussion of some legal issues. Should anyone require legal advice, he or she should consult an attorney. (mandatory disclaimer for attorneys writing about legal issues on public websites)
The whole truth in a court of law is a rare thing. There are many reasons for this, but among these reasons are 1) the lawyers ask the questions, and the witnesses give the responses; 2) some testimony is inadmissible, even though it is true; and 3) discovery rules prevent full disclosure of some facts.
On point 1, where a witness knows all about the facts, and the particular situation, he cannot just speak out from the witness stand but must answer the attorney’s questions. We have probably all heard on a tv show or in a movie, an attorney asking the witness to “tell us what happened that night.” In an real courtroom, it is not a good idea for the attorney to ask such an open-ended question. Witnesses do much more harm than good when they are allowed such free rein. Witnesses get nervous, they don’t fully understand all the fine points of law and evidence, and can make very damaging statements that sometimes ruins their chance of winning.
On point 2, there are many rules of evidence that keep some testimony or other potential evidence from being heard by the jury. One such rule that is familiar to many people is the hearsay rule. There is also a rule against evidence that is unduly prejudicial, a rule against privileged information, and others. Thus, the truth may be available, may even be known to both parties, but cannot be introduced and presented to the jury.
On point 3, the most telling reason that the whole truth is not generally found in a court of law, is that one side never knew the whole truth. Each party has knowledge of its own data and facts, but discloses to the other party only that which is requested and also required under the rules of discovery. Many things are secret and will not be divulged in discovery. In borderline cases, the judge can see the information and rule on how much of it, if any, to allow to be disclosed to the other side. Cases are won and lost in the discovery stage, so this is very important to attorneys on both sides. Discovery is generally very boring to the clients and even more boring to those not party to the case.
Clever lawyers know about the point made in the article above, that is, one party telling or showing the jury only that part of the truth that is favorable to one’s case. This can backfire, though, when the opposing attorney is knowledgeable and points out the missing data or other facts that are also true. While attorneys cannot be forced to testify (that is almost always the rule in the USA), they can call witnesses to testify to the points they need to make. The jury may wonder why one party withheld crucial information, and then distrust all the other information or testimony given by that party.
The climate change debate, especially any role played by man’s activities and release of greenhouse gases, already has a few cases in the courts. As one example, the State of California was sued recently in Federal court (Fresno) over the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a law that requires substantial volumes of biofuels be included in gasoline and diesel sold in California. This will be a very interesting case to watch. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is a part of California’s AB 32, and information on it can be found here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/ab-32-and-low-carbon-fuel-standard.html
Henry (21:43:08) :
Off topic, great shuttle launch pic:
http://www.launchphotography.com/STS-130.html
==================================================
What an awesome piece of machinery!
Don’t go all hard on him. In the GDR and the entire eastern bloc people had to read between the lines and give subtle signs so that the censors and snitches wouldn’t have a reason to arrest them. The sentences
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The people who have been focusing on the ‘cooling’ have not been telling the whole truth,”
are just such a sign. It’s a red flag. Somebody inside NOAA uses the word TRUTH to point to glaring omissions and lies. It’s a code word. Why on earth would he otherwise place this preposterous exclamation right above a striking example of an al-gore-ianism?
In other words, look out for TRUTH, ROBUST, UNEQUIVOCAL EVIDENCE etc and you’ll find the weak spots.
@Henry-I want a President smarter than me, and I am pretty damn smart…
I want a president who has honesty and wisdom, who is a proven leader, who appreciates historic American values, and who has proven executive experience, which includes the ability to choose and listen to the advice of competent advisors. Demonstrating “smartness” while emoting in front of and audience might be useful if trying out for playing the role of President in a Hollywood move, but it doesn’t give much assurance of success in the actual job, as Mr. Obama seems to be proving.
J.Peden (20:05:58) :
So everyone just lie back and enjoy the Fantasyland with them, or else Karl might start threatening to commit suicide or something.
================================================
Was that said with this in mind?
Phil Jones said…..he had thought about killing himself “several times”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece
An Inconvenient Delay
Turns out the release was planned prepared ahead of the snowstorm, which shut federal agencies today (2/8/10) and forced its senders to hold a press conference by telephone instead of at the National Press Club.
And what release was that?
NOAA says, “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,” the release says.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/02/08/noaa-blizzard-rearranges-climate-change-announcement/
Henry,
Obama promised to “bankrupt” the coal industry and “make electricity prices skyrocket.” Is that centrist?
Obama said
“as the world’s largest economy … America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change.” Therefore, America must pay for the “financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59345
OTOH
“REDDING, Calif.—Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a “bunch of snake oil science” Monday during a rare appearance in California, a state that has been at the forefront of environmental regulations. ”
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14361335
Who is the intelligent one?
D. Johnson-
You have that, get beyond Fox and Rush and you will be fine ,as will America. We are much better off with a smart centrist that a nonthinking Pres following delusional paranoids…
http://www.climate.gov/
Go to the main page and scroll down to the Global Climate Dashboard and you’ll see rising Sea Level and declining Arctic sea ice extent as if the two were somehow correlated (hello, Arctic *Ocean* sea ice??). All the others are also designed as if correlation equals causation. Red flags if you ask me. Certainly tried make it so between rising sea level and declining Arctic sea ice extent (which, btw, begs the question about the historical extent of Antarctica ice).
It’s an outrage that Obama has cut NASA’s space exploration budget in order to fund more of these crap climate change projects. Anthony, please make it stop. We’re all counting on you. Thanks 😉
Henry (21:52:06) :
This has nothing to do with political pegging, and everything to do with a sloppy effort at maintaining a policy rooted in a shell game of statistical mumbo jumbo.
They aren’t fooling anyone except those who want to believe in AGW.
In addition to a snow shovel, one now needs a PolyScience shovel to keep the driveway clear.
REPLY: Not intended to be cute. Like I said, anybody can get his email address in a few seconds of Googling. – A
==================================================
I don’t see a problem in knowing how to contact him. he doesn’t hide his email address. I can’t see why anyone would raise an objection to it being in this post, I can’t see why at all.
Also, my boss knows how to get in touch with me, he is supposed to be able to get in touch with me. The public is Tom Karl’s, and the NOAA’s boss. The public should be able to get in touch with them.
Steve Goddard (22:40:52) :
They will be carrying an audio tape of her in our nightly news. After that State of the Union speech, lots of folks want to hear what she has to say.
Climate Chat at 1 pm EST at
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/online-discussion-margaret-wente-on-climate-change/article1460602/#
The comment section is already being bombarded by “Thumb” skewers….
1, 2, 3, 4… The warmists have declared a Thumbs War…
Steve Goddard (22:40:52) :
What Obama is saying has the ring of Marxism to it.
NOAA says, “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including…..longer growing seasons….”
They must have never talked to farmers.
rbateman (22:47:21) :
In addition to a snow shovel,
Is that for the ‘shovel ready’ snow in Washington? 20 more inches might be coming the next 2 days.
@SteveGoddard-
Obama just made clean coal one of his primary goals for next year, and he had $1 billion for the first clean coal plant in Southern Illinois in the stimulus package, but Repubs nixed it. Find some facts, please.
NASA wasted billions on Constellation and it was billions over budget with no end in sight, it missed replacing the shuttle the YEARS. We can’t go anywhere beyond the moon with humans until we fix the shielding problem anyway.
All you guys really want to be dependent on foreign oil? We do not have enough oil to do shit, but we are the Saudi Arabia of coal as Obama said at his town hall in NH last week. You guys really do need to get off the right wing websites and get the facts…
[snip]!!!!! Do you guys no anything? You are no better than Pachuri! Obama has REMOVED the carbon tax and the green stuff from the Energy bill, he knows it has zero chance of passage on its own. Obama killed climate change for this year, and likely next, last month. Do you guys even follow politics?
Folks, you need a little more of the old “Trust noone, question everything” mentality. No party is right, all news is spin. Go watch the real apeeches, listen to the real debates and get the facts. NEVER trust a website like this one without looking at the source material, and never trust anyone who send anything on the internet unless you have listened to the whole speech, in context.
It really is easy to do, just listen to the source, not the news about the source or statement, but the statement, itself, in context.
Marcia-
Actually, farmers in northern climes in the U.S. have been buying seeds meant for more southern growers, if they get lucky it is an easy way for them to increase yield. If they dont get lucky they get screwed and lose alot, unless of course they are insured by the Government who pays them as if they had a fine crop (farmers are one of the biggest beneficiaries of gov handouts, BTW) .
Noone has released the sales data yet, but I bet not many take the bet this year…
CRS, Dr. P.H.
If you look closely you’ll notice some differences the NSIDC graphic
you’re citing:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100203_Figure1_thumb.png
and the one NASA has up right now:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/326193main_sup1seaicemax_full.jpg
You’ll notice a variance at the western coast of Greenland, around
New Foundland and northeast of Main, and the Bering Sea.
Sadly, neither shows the extra sea ice clogging up some of the
Chinese harbors and shipping lanes. It’s supposed to be a
once-in-30-years phenonmena.
[bridge too far ~ ctm]
[posting as multiple identities is prohibited ~ ctm]
Henry (21:21:34) :
J. Peden-
Go ask yourself, would any knowledgeable and well versed politician need a three line note to remember an answer to a question, a question that she she knew in ADVANCE?
Your claim is so extreme that it disproves itself, and it also shows a rather uncontrollable need to diss Palin, who is didn’t win and isn’t even the Governor of Alaska any more. So what’s the problem? Why is she such a threat to you?
I want a President smarter than me, and I am pretty damn smart…
Well, Obama backs Climate Science and Cap and Tax, while Palin and I don’t. Do you?
Henry (23:22:47) :
“Obama just made clean coal one of his primary goals for next year, and he had $1 billion for the first clean coal plant in Southern Illinois in the stimulus package, but Repubs nixed it. Find some facts, please.”
Henry, I found me some facts about FutureGen, the “clean coal” plant in S. Illinois otherwise known as “the biggest earmark in history.”
It’s not dead, but waiting on a decision by the DOE. Meanwhile, even the hopey-changey Illinois contingent appears to have at least some reservations about the spiraling cost and effectiveness of the project, the success of which apparently depends on how effectively the federal government can decimate the existing coal industry.
http://progressillinois.com/posts/content/2010/02/04/future-futuregen
Anyhow, Henry, you really should heed your own advice — about finding facts.
Facts can be found on
Data of Sea Ice Extent IARC-JAXA Information System
Yesterdays figure (8th february 2010) 13,498,906 km2
Please observe that 1th february 2010 The ice extant were 13,332,656 km2
24th december 11,894,531 km2
I have often wondered how far to the left someone has to be to see 0bama as “centrist”. Actually, that is a frightening thought to me.
Anyway, why did they name the Northwest and the Northeast passages “passages” if they’ve never been open before? Again, it’s one of the great mysteries of cognitive dissonance… one can see evidence right in front of them, and yet refuse to see it.
We’ve also seen the historical newspaper scans from 100 years ago, lamenting the imminent collapse of the arctic as it’s all melting away. What, exactly, is unprecedented in climate and/or weather these days?
A refusal to accept prior anecdotal evidence because it’s not “confirmed” or “peer reviewed” is as childish as it gets, and yet that’s what we are seeing.
When it comes to the arctic and antarctic ice, we HAVE to take someone else’s word for what is happening. None of us have been there, or go regularly to monitor things. It is unfortunate that we are forced to take the word of people that we KNOW are biased… and even when they use data sources that are most likely honest, they use their bias to distort what they are showing.
The sea ice data, cited from NSIDC, stops in 2007. 2008 and 2009 sea ice data and imagery, available to even the simplest of curiosity seekers at the publicly available NSIDC or even Cryosphere Today websites, is not included in the graphic.
From Gores film, choose where you start or end but don`t show all the data.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/goresfilm.jpg
Wouldn’t it be great if someone set up a mirror of the .gov site but edited it to reflect a skeptic “consensus” – including all the stuff they leave out which skews the conclusion, with many more references – Play them at their own game but keep it real 🙂
Great site Anthony, Keep up the good work!
A comment I left at the climate.gov site:
Looked at the “ocean acidification” pdf. Incredible rubbish! First, the ocean already contains more than 50 times as much co2 as the entire atmosphere; we could burn all the oil and coal on the planet overnight without measurably changing the ocean’s content.
Second, the ocean is full of calcium ions. Try the 7th grade earth science experiment: blow through a soda straw into a glass of hard tapwater. See the limestone particles precipitate out? The whole ocean is a giant buffer that maintains its chemistry within a narrow range.
Why are you spreading this anti-scientific propaganda?
====
Needless to say, I don’t expect any response…
Guess that the main point is to illustrate NOAA leaving out stuff, but it seems to me looking at the ice extent pics you could make of them whatever you like. 2009 looks a like there’s generally a lot less ice than the average. Some types show a recent increase while other types show a decrease. What it all means to me, as a layman in this area, leaves me clueless. Am I missing something? I’m a complete sceptic by the way, (chemistry background), man’s contribution of CO2 to warming and ocean acidification just don’t stack up when the numbers are crunched. It’s so fundamental I wonder why we bother with disproving the rest of it.
“posting as multiple identities is prohibited ~ ctm”
Charles, is there a dispensation for the schitzophrenic?
Reply: Yes and no. I know Charles and I are no Charles. ~ ctm
Robert M Marshall (19:43:42) :
“But it would make for a grand inaugural to have their server shut down by millions of e-mails pointing out their errors and hypocrisy. Let’s do it.”
Robert, are you suggesting that this group should collectively take down a US Federal Computing Resource?
“I want a President smarter than me, and I am pretty damn smart…”
I want a President wiser than me. I’ve know a lot “smart people” who are to dumb to get out of a thunderstorm.
This is a graph of avergage montly Arctic sea ice extent for January (1979-2010):
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100203_Figure3.png
What “rebuilding” in 2007 and 2008 are you talking about, people? Isn’t the trend line obvious? The ice cover is clearly diminishing over time, are you going to trumpet a “rebuilding” every three or four years before it takes another record plunge?
They tell the truth Anthony. But only the truth they want you to hear….
Wow Henry you display all the hallmarks of an [no name calling of other commenters ~ ctm]. Those hallmarks are an overconfidence (hubris) with regard to your intellect and wisdom in comparison to those you lecture. It would be wrong to suggest you debate because that is clearly below you, or more precisely, you seem to view it as below you. For your information I am from the UK but took the time to read Obama’s “Audacity of Hope” and it was quite clear that he is and was (based upon actions and rhetoric) what I would categorise as far left in many ways. This is because of his view of the huge role of Government in ‘solving’ societal problems.
You may be ‘smart’ but so are many others who are equally well informed and have reached differing conclusions.
I have considerably more time for Mrs Palin than I do your President regardless of IQ scores.
I have researched reasonably well and it’s easy to find the same “dumbass’ insults being directed at Reagan throughout his political career as he was a direct speaker also.
Perhaps a bit folksy for you but you ain’t everyone!
On those 4 images of new and old ice, how come old ice continues to reduce after the max melt? ( it’s less than before in both 2008,2009 ). It can’t have melted, right?. Is this due to the ice spreading itself out?
Even if the latter is true, I don’t think the redistributed old ice shouldf be called new ice. A week old fish sliced into 2 thinner halves doesn’t make it any fresher.
“I do not disagree that Obama is limited by some left of center cabinet choices, but he is a centrist, and this whole Obama as a radical thing is belied by facts…
”
A centrist wouldn’t MAKE those cabinet choices. Most aren’t “left of center” but “far left.”
Obama isn’t a centrist, he just plays the centrist card. He’s willing to “work with republicans” if that means republicans will nod their head to his proposals. If republicans can’t agree with the core of his plan, then he doesn’t promote an alternative plan that they can agree to, he just calls them names.
The country has come to realize that his campaigning self-promotion and evidence of real behavior just don’t jive, which is why his approval numbers have come back to political norms from their lofty highs.
I think what most on here are saying Larus, is that what is happening HAS happened before and WILL undoubtedly happen again. The data shown on the site(s) listed in the comments above shows significant rebuilding of the ice pack over the last 2+ years. It in NO way is a reason to sell all of your belongings and move to the nearest cave.
New NY Times Article:
This will work wonderfully well to make sure everyone stays on-message. A central point that approves all releases really cuts down on all that unsupported non-scientific chatter.
Perhaps asking why it is so cold with all this snow?
Of course not, that was never given a single thought.
And there you have it. Honesty and transparency all around so people can fully trust climate change scientists once more.
And to think people were worried the quality of the NYT’s investigative environmental journalism was going to change after Andy Revkin left. Go figure.
NikFromNYC (21:08:24) :
Nice work!
The “whole truth” should also includes the press release by NASA in 2007 blaming mainly wind and currents for the dramatic loss of ice. As reported by WUWT in 2007.
From NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
————
The NCDC has a page called:
“How do we know the Earth’s climate is warming?”
with lots of indicators stating almost all as fact. Maybe they are not telling the whole truth and when you live in a glass house you should not throw stones.
Lots of half truths below and flagrant lies below:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
Taken from the Climatewatch article ”In contrast, the UK Met Office predicted warming beginning in a few years from 2009. Both groups, however, agreed that after a short period of negative or no trend in the early 2000s, global temperatures would begin to rise, perhaps quickly.
In other words, the no-trend period in the Hadley Centre’s data set not only doesn’t surprise these climatologists, it’s consistent with what they have predicted.”
Uh-oh? The Met office was predicting ‘a barbacue summer’ in 2007 that was going to top previous record high 1998. Would that not be some type of trend continuing they were predicting? Now its ‘warming beginning in a few years from 2009’.
Has someone thought to let NOAA know that the BBC is seriously considering dopping the Met office (after 90 years) because their weather forcasts are so inaccurate and just plain wrong.
If the Met can’t even cope with 1 or 2 weeks forcasts, there really is not a lot of hope for them really.
The only people who call FutureGen an earmark, are the southern anti-coal repubs like Coburn who are trying to kill it. Why are they trying to kill it? The gas and oil lobby hates the idea that the plants coming next will be coal and not natural gas.
Meet coal hater, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
As for FutureGen, it is also attempting to allow more coal deposits to be used, like those higher in sulfur in the MidWest, so the West Virginians hate it, but strip mining coal is more enviromentally friendly than mountaintop removal.
To Palin lover-
I wont respond to insane spittle, got a fact?
” CodeTech (01:34:17) :
[…]
Anyway, why did they name the Northwest and the Northeast passages “passages” if they’ve never been open before? ”
Why is the Northwest passage called a passage when it was never open? Well, because they were looking for a passage. A nice writeup about attempts during victorian times:
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/franklin/nwp.html
I wouldn’t make too much of that word. ‘Ultima Thule’ comes to mind. Google for that yourself, i won’t say who was the biggest fan of that myth only that he had a moustache.
koko (22:42:48) :
‘…..you’ll see rising Sea Level and declining Arctic sea ice extent as if the two were somehow correlated’
Archimedes principle : if all sea ice melts, sea level rise is zero. A law of physics not subject to opinion, although propaganda and stupidity are possible reasons for any mistaken beliefs.
I really did think Coburn got FutureGen killed, see comments and post here:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/coburn-trying-to-strip-futuregen-earmark.php
…and I was wrong that Coburn was succesful, but you are wrong that it is the biggest earmark ever – ever seen an earmark draw 500 million in private funds?
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/\\
From even conservative companies like CAT:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0820717720100208
Read it and weep kids, Obama loves coal, the lefties hate him for it, it is the southern repubs who hate it.
Larus (02:53:49) :
What “rebuilding” in 2007 and 2008 are you talking about, people? Isn’t the trend line obvious? The ice cover is clearly diminishing over time, are you going to trumpet a “rebuilding” every three or four years before it takes another record plunge?
Try this one:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100203_Figure2.png
Looking from October through February inclusive, while still below the 1979-2000 average, the periods shown (2005-06, 2006-07, 2009-2010) are all amazingly similar. Note how 2006-07 started and ended with more ice than 2005-06. Eyeballing those three lines, I can’t really see a difference between them, and 2009-10 is on track to end up just the same as the other two. If there is a “massive loss” it must be in the other seven months, but all three periods are starting at about the same boring amount.
And where are the 2007-08 and 2008-09 lines?
Henry (20:00:13): “As an attorney and a Ph.D. I am terribly offended that they would lump all skeptics in as liars, and then lie. This is no better than Palin screaming about Obama’s use of a teleprompter while using notes and scribbling answers on her hand, NASA should be ashamed.”
Spoken like a true attorney. When arguing, bring in politics as a defense. Pray tell, how do notes written on the palm differ from 3×5 cards? Contrast with a Teleprompter line that the speaker cannot even pronounce correctly.
I think Michon Scott could actually be one of us sceptics, or he is a fool. By making an obvious gaff in his article, he’s actually sending a message to those ‘in the know’ that the whole thing is a load of rubbish.
This was often done by Russian scientists in the bad old Stalin days, to the same end.
? Will Owl Gorey be the secret head of this new agency? And, how long before Mann and Jones become involved? In the wake of the scandal, hoax, whatever, this should make those with common sense, begin to wonder if they should be voting for someone who id like-minded. D.C. has been infiltrated with intellectual elites, but the working class suffers more everyday. These elites continue to spend money that the government doesn’t have, on problems that only exist in their minds.
Henry,
Political expediency doesn’t change Obama’s core belief system.
The complete quote should read more like:
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. …..but when you are selling apocalyptic claptrap and popular delusions like AGW, no holds are barred.”
Any ideas why their solar irradecence chart ends at 2000? I’ve been curious about that since Anthony posted the first link to Climate.gov
Henry (23:32:26) : Folks, you need a little more of the old “Trust noone, question everything” mentality. No party is right, all news is spin. Go watch the real apeeches, listen to the real debates and get the facts.
It is actually frightening you admire this ‘intelligence’ as you put it. This must be ‘intelligent’, babbling, idiocy as usual:
January 2008 Obama, Quote:
“The problem is not technical, the problem is not uh, sufficient mastery of the intracacies of Washington, the problem is uh, can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing. Uh that requires mobilizing a citizenry, that requires them understanding what is at stake, you know, and climate change is a great example, you know when I was asked earlier about uh the issue of coal, uh, you’ll, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal-powered plants natural gas plants, you name it, whatever the industry was, uh, retrofit their operations, that will cost money that will be passed on to consumers. You can already, you can already see what the arguments are going to be, during the general election,people are going to say ‘Obama and Al Gore, these folks are gonna to destroy the economy with this $8 trillion dollars or whatever the number is’, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes there’s going to be an increase in the rates of electricity in the front end, but that over the long term because of the combination of the more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs,and more efficient appliances, uh, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit, if we can’t make that argue it persuasively enough you, you can uh, you can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington, you’re not gonna get that done.”
As I recall, NOAA explained on their site that the 2007 ice loss was largely due to a combined effect of very extraordinary wind and current patterns. I learned that here, as that was blogged about on WUWT at the time.
This new website is, frankly, very disturbing. I look to my governmental science agencies to be engaged in science, not propaganda.
Henry (04:34:00) :
(…)
From even conservative companies like CAT:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0820717720100208
Wow. Caterpillar, a business, that prefers to make a profit, that sells equipment used in coal extraction, is willing to support “clean” coal energy, the only form of coal energy the greenies in power will support and allow (if any), which will (in theory) lead to more coal plants, more coal extraction, Caterpillar selling more equipment, and Caterpillar, a business, making a large profit.
Isn’t it truly amazing how a conservative company is willing to set aside their firmly-held politics to help save the planet? With money, of course, playing absolutely no part in their decision whatsoever. Absolutely astounding.
And this after Caterpillar so firmly proclaimed their staunch conservatism by taking part in that “Stimulus Bill” photo-op with Obama, where he announced on behalf of the company all the many people they were going to hire back with the stimulus funds. Go figure.
All United States government officials and employees are required to take an oath of office that reads as follows:
I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Our government officials fail continuously to discharge their duties.
checking the website at 8:45 CST Tues morning, it appears that they have changed the photo/graphic. It now shows 2009 along with a depiction of the 1979 to 2000 average.
Man…I had my email all fired up and ready to go.
Obama is a CEO. Just because he “O”pines about everything and anything he wants doesn’t mean he’s “doing” anything. If you’re worried about any of his intentions be sure to contact your friends on the Board of Directors and make it clear to them what it is you do and don’t like about what the CEO is muttering from his little teleprompter.
The Board of Directors is very sensitive to your every wish and desire, especially if you make it clear to them that their little rear ends and nice big incomes are at stake and you’re going to back up your words with action between now and the next election.
The biggest problem with the economy and the direction of government is that once the election is over folks ‘a s s u m e’ everything is in good hands. Never assume, it makes an a s s out of u and m e. The biggest problem is not that politicians have gotten worse, it’s that voters have gotten lazy.
Is Obama punishing NASA for getting caught in it’s lies? I wonder who will punish Obama? The voters?
It’s Bush’s Fault!!!
No, really.
Poor GW did a great job as Governor of Texas. The head Democrat in the state legislature, Bob Bullock, would work closely with GW to get things done for the state. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987009,00.html
When GW went to DC, he tried to be bi-partisan and work with the Democrats. It didn’t work. In that vein, he didn’t remove the liberal Democrat activists that Clinton had appointed. It showed over the eight years of his administration wherein the activists helped the Democrat party undermine his agenda and cause him to fail.
(No? See the video here at about minute 45: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/
Democrats cheering that they caused GW fail in his attempts to save the economic future of these United States.)
Poor GW had a chance to remove these radical activists from the Federal government and he didn’t.
So it IS his fault.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
As Mark Wagner (06:49:07) mentioned, they updated the photo and description:
“This map shows the median extent of sea ice during September from 1979-2000 (in yellow), and the minimum extent observed in 2009”
So, what’s the point of the map then? Seeing those two sets of data shown together is meaningless. Why are they not showing the median 2009 extent? Or the minimum extent for 1979-2000?
Yes, these questions are all a little bit rhetorical.
Folks the government is NOT an independent entity. It is a political entity. Its scientists are employed to further political or policy relevant agendas, not to engage in a dispassionate examination of the way the natural world works. The only way to guarantee independent science is to free scientists from reliance on politicians for funding and to ban scientists from being employed by the government … otherwise caveat emptor!
Why we ever got to the place where we assume government employees are capable of the dispassionate study of ANYTHING is beyond me.
I (Brian G Valentine), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Count me in on that one. I’m a Federal employee and I’ll die before I witness people suffer because of superstition and the apparatus invented to make that superstition appear as reality
[snip] Try again without using “denialist.”
Serious question here about the NSIDC plots above.
Comparing the 2008 and 2009 plots it seems clear that, having reached a minimum in 2007 there was lots of “first year” ice in 2008. By 2009 a lot of that had become “second year ice” – which might suggest some sort of recovery.
What seems odd, though, is that a large part of the “older ice” in 2008 is shown as “second year ice” in 2009.
Now, surely, if the ice in that area was “1 – 2 years old” in 2009 then it must have been there in 2008. In which case it was part of the “older ice” that existed in 2008, so would be “even older” ice in 2009?
I can see how old ice might melt and then be replaced by first year ice in one year but I can’t see how old ice can turn into “1 – 2 year old” ice in the same period???
You need to not work for NOAA to find this imagery.
@ Pascvaks:
Further, Obama is the CEO of the United States division of Global, Inc.
As soon as USA’s interests conflict with Global’s, he will sell us down the river. Watch.
@Eric B:
It’s not meaningless; it’s deceptive.
Firing up my email again…
DirkH (04:26:24) : So you deny Roald Amundsen went through the passage in 1903–1906
http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm
It’s always Marcia, Marcia (21:29:15) :
Marcia, another DOH moment! Sometimes you need a 2×4 to hit you upside the head to see the obvious! Yes, now we know that NOAA and NASA (and all their children) have been retasked for one thing only under this administration – increase tax revenue.
Why is this Michon Scott writing policy pieces when it appears that her (maybe his?) background is in website design ???
I have contacted NOAA and asked for her professional and educational background.
Text from my e-mail to NOAA regarding its new web site,
In looking through your agency’s new ClimateWatch magazine, all I can feel is sadness. A once proud science organization, NOAA appears now to officially be in the climate advocacy business? As a working geologist, American citizen, and tax payer, I am offended on several levels by the website, and in particular with the article: “What the Future May Hold”, by Mr. Michon Scott (December 31, 2009). Is this really what NOAA is calling science reporting these days?
I hope you would agree that working in the physical sciences is often a humbling experience. The condescending and disrespectful tone of Mr. Scott’s science/advocacy article is therefore disappointing, and I would have hoped, below a supposedly world renown scientific organization such as NOAA. Honestly, Mr. Scott’s article seemed much more like something one would find on a Green Peace, WWF, or RealClimate.com website. If advocacy organizations such as Green Peace, WWF, and RealClimate wish to promote only one side of the climate issue on their websites, this is America and that is their prerogative, at least I’m not forced to pay for it. However,
I am really disheartened to see that a government-funded organization like NOAA has apparently chosen to behave like just another one-sided, agenda-driven, science advocacy group.
If NOAA is truly a scientific organization, why is it apparently so eager to “protect” the public from various “non-mainstream” hypotheses regarding variations in climate? Why in the world would an apparently scientific organization feel such a strong need to take sides on such a contentious issue? Has NOAA totally forgotten how to successfully utilize the time-honored concept of multiple working hypotheses? Regardless of ones’ current view point on the climate issue, one-sided, agenda-based science
has never worked well, and never will.
I very much resent my tax dollars being used to support this type of one-sided advocacy website, a website that looks, to me, an awful lot like a “government-run” version of RealClimate.com. I am therefore, respectfully requesting that NOAA please stop its semi-scientific advocacy activities, we have Green Peace, WWF, and RealClimate.com for that; such behavior should be beneath you.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Pray tell, how do notes written on the palm differ from 3×5 cards?
NFL Quarterbacks are also in Palin’s league, only much worse!
Just coincidentally I saw on the tv news the Mayor of Washington, D.C., kind of awkwardly reading a statement about the snow there from notes extended at arm’s length downward, so that he had to keep looking way down to his left in order to read a rather simple statement, and he wasn’t trying to hide it. But who cares? I’m not going to judge this guy on that criterion. Obama on the other hand is hoisted on his own petard, or at least what others have made his only saving grace by now, his alleged ability to “give a great speech”. Oops!
Henry:
To Palin lover-
Henry, here’s your chance to see what your problem is, if I can explain it half clearly: you think that because you hate Palin [“passionately” = irrationally], then anyone who doesn’t hate Palin must love Palin [“passionately” = irrationally]. You think that everyone is thinking like you are, except that you’ve just somehow managed to get it right and they haven’t. Because you are good and they aren’t, or something like that.
It’s the old mutually exclusive “good guy, bad guy” way of approaching reality, somewhat like those who think their Highschool’s team is good, and the other school’s team is bad, that’s all there is to it, and that’s as deep as it gets, i.e., not very.
But the completely other, more rational and scientific, option is to simply objectively analyze what people actually do, Palin and Obama for example. Keep the analysis always going and subject to any modification necessary, and see what happens, but starting from the beginning. It’s really much easier that way, as opposed to having to get locked into an early right-wrong/good-bad choice then defend it as things evolve.
You can see that the latter is what “Climate Science” did, which is why it is not doing real Science, and why it is totally uncredible at best.
All you have to do is back offf and relax, then look. If Palin degenerates into being “partners with god in matters of life and death”, while Obama suddenly actually starts to seriously push for Nuclear Energy as a very large step toward the solution to ‘jobs’, ‘the economy’, ‘energy’, and CO2 worries, then I’m almost certainly going to modify my views of them both.
Henry ( I forget which post) – I know something about the coal industry , and believe me , Obama does not “love” coal .
Obama loves “clean” coal. He knows there is no such thing according to EPA’s recent redefinition of CO2, so he is safe in proclaiming it. He knows it can’t happen.
I can’t help thinking that if climate change sceptics were organised into a properly constituted pressure group, a kind of “anti-Greenpeace” we could do so much. Lobby government, get time with Barack Obama, go and visit the guys in charge of this outrageous NOAA website and have a proper debate with them, hold press conferences, becone a contributor organisation to the fifth assessment report, even produce the “Alternative IPCCReport”…
But actually all we do is comment on these blogs and rant indignantly at each other. Preaching to the choir, you might say.
The good news is the US government has a law that forbids them from lying, including their contractors and grantees it’s called the Data Quality Act of 2001. I assume that it even covers the government’s new “global warming hoax” site. Here is a link == http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Quality_Act
And so how do they ‘fix’ the hole left by CRU and the rest? And what do they now call the ‘adjustments’?
It’s been killing me. I’ve got to ask.
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Space & Nuclear Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
What does “Former NASA PI for Apollo” mean?
P Walker: ” I know something about the coal industry , and believe me , Obama does not “love” coal.”
He does, however, love votes….
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/usaimagemap.htm
as do they all.
Americas Global Warming Terrorists
By Alan Caruba
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/02/americas-global-warming-terrorists.html
Wonder why US Congress and all of DC took recess this week?
Is white global warning making them a little flush about waiste deep?
Why did they all tuck tail and run back to Mia Mommy?
Why are DC police arresting frolicking fun-loving citizens for throwing white environmental cleaning at each other?
Let’s all make the new climate gate czar earn her pay scale. Simply write and ask simple questions like the onew above.
Since she mail never heard of google, send this link to shim: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/Policy_Programs/info_quality.html
thomas.r.karl [at] noaa.gov
Re: the IPCC, I just ran across this interesting page from the late, great John Daly: click
For all is illusion sayeth the… or at least as big an illusion as we need to fit our version of the truth! Maybe that is what hell is really all about…time will tell, unfortunately it will be those who come after us who will be paying the price for our selfish lifestyles! One swallow doesn’t make a summer! and one bad winter doesn’t change the fact that the polar icecaps are melting…melting…melting…fast!
God help us when they have….
Rob Anesly,
Hmm-mm. What was that all about?
Henry,
You are confused, Obama does not love coal, He just loves to spend our tax dollars even on energy sources especially if it is Illinois and he can reward his buddies from Chicago with 1+ Billion dollars from the stimulus bill. In reality he hates like coal but he needs it.
On the serious side, reality may have set in. Surely he must by now realize that he cannot bankrupt the coal fired plants as he promised during the campaign since the renewable energy sources will never meet our energy needs for many decades. In fact he recently brought up Nuclear energy
On potential problem though is that development of the technology may take decades and may never become commercially viable and the electricity rates will certainly skyrocket since capture and sequestration of CO2 will be quite expensive. As others indicated Bush stopped funding the project due to cost overruns and forced private industry to provide funding if the project were to continue. I notice that quite a few companies are kicking in now since their future may depend on clean coal.
Keep in mind that this is a research project and it has a long history of overruns. See below:
“The Department of Energy’s total anticipated financial contribution for the project is $1.073 billion, $1 billion of which comes from Recovery Act funds for carbon capture and storage research. The FutureGen Alliance’s total anticipated financial contribution is $400 million to $600 million, based on a goal of 20 member companies each contributing a total of $20 million to $30 million over a four to six year period. The Alliance, with support from DOE, will pursue options to raise additional non-federal funds needed to build and operate the facility, including options for capturing the value of the facility that will remain after conclusion of the research project, potentially through an auction of the residual interests in the late fall.
Tom B:
Refer to Oliver’s web site.
http://www.omatumr.com
He was principal investigator on a couple of research projects, one of them related to Apollo 15.
I note that they’ve changed their website. I wonder why they decided to change the image to show only the minimum extent for 2009, and not include all the other years?
It’s close to as bad as what they had before, since the extent has been growing for the past 3 years. Also just as bad, they don’t report that recovery. Looking at the animation, it simply looks like 2007 was a bad year..
Who knows? If we had satellites back in the 30’s it might have looked just as bad one or two of those years.
Smokey (19:17:09) :
Rob Anesly,
Hmm-mm. What was that all about?
Guilt, blame, panic, disasterizing, fear of life, self-hate, impotence, feelings of worthlessness, wanting to return to the womb or the Garden – the usual decompensation.
“Veronica (England) (13:12:33)”
Veronica, almost all that’s being and been done, except that a lot of us here don’t feel like bribing Politicians. Cap and Tax is dead here in the U.S., except for a certain dead cat bounce. Of course, we’ll have to keep helping them fail – you just never know about Zombies and Progressives.
Try this:
http://www.therealpictures.com/wuwt/propaganda%20at%20noaa.gif
Go to climate.gov and search for “propaganda”. The response is hilarious.
Look at http://www.climate.gov. Why does all of the data END at a convient place to emphisize global warming? Look at the main page dashboard Solar Irradiance graph for example. The portion shown looks steady – But, if you move the slider you see it was much lower 100 years ago. Why no graph of Solar Irradiance and global temperature on top of each other? Could it be that they would mimic each other almost perfectly? Oh, thats right, the sun does not cause global warming CO2 does.
And our/your kids look at this at school. How much do they look at.
Strange that none of your balanced, unbiased, genuinely sceptical readers seem to have pointed out the clear message of the graphic captioned “Above: Average, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Arctic sea ice extent. From NSIDC”.
That is, despite an increase in the minimum sea-ice extent from 2007 to 2009, the extent of older ice (shown in green) has shrunk rapidly. The implication is that while a thin (1 metre thick) coating of single year ice has extended in response to normal (e.g. ENSO-driven) weather fluctuations, the proportion of older thicker (3m) ice, and therefore ice volume, continues to plummet.
Combining extent and thickness data suggests a 70% loss of sea ice, by volume, between 1980 and 2008. For more detail and references see http://tinyurl.com/ashby-response/slide-26
Jonathan (21:01:40),
Naturally, you would cite a heavily biased blog that focuses on the Arctic.
The Antarctic is gaining ice – and anyway, it’s all natural variability – the exact same thing has happened repeatedly in the past, during pre-SUV times.
Time to get a clue… or read the WUWT archives, and get up to speed on the subject.